المنتدى العالمي المعني بالأمن الغذائي والتغذية

Walter Mwasaa raises important matters with regard to our understanding of resilience in social-ecological systems and the design and implementation of “resilience building” projects. My response comes from a complex systems perspective rather than a simple mechanistic system perspective.

The short answer to Walter’s question is that there cannot be a minimum time frame within which an individual, community or any kind of complex adaptive system remains resilient. Firstly, resilience is an emergent property of complex systems, which means that resilience changes constantly in relation to the interactions between the internal components of the system and larger system(s) within which it is embedded. The fit between those internal changes processes, and changes in the larger system will determine whether the individual or community: survives and recovers from the shock; expires because it does not have the capacity to adapt to that shock; or survives and changes in some significant way that enhances its capacity to survive future shocks. 

Any short term outcomes that “build resilience” can only be short term, because we cannot predict how living beings will continue to grow and adapt and we cannot predict what kinds of shock might occur in the future. Complex systems are not predictable and require us to constantly learn and adapt as the world in which we live changes around us. 

From a complex systems perspective, the idea that we can build resilience using short term mechanistic, economistic policies and projects is illogical because the underlying assumption of predictability is false. The outcome of the mismatch is that lots of money is being spent on doing the wrong thing by people who understandably yet illogically expect that resilience can be built in the same way as infrastructure and technology are built. The problem is that in industrial societies we still believe that scientific determinism will provide solutions to complex problems. Our approach to economics, the law and much of the practice of science management is based on the belief that complexity is reducible and ultimately predictable. There are no solutions to problems in complex systems in the sense that problems of math, physics and engineering can be solved. We can only learn and adapt to change as it occurs, or by learning the lessons of the past.

There is an interesting summary of the discussion about development resilience and social-ecological system resilience here http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss3/art40/

I personally believe that for a community to be resilient it has to continuously assess and address issues related to vulnerability. This follows a cyclic pattern and is a continuous process. It is for sure very difficult to give specific outcomes per any given time since the situation is continuously changing. There are a number of strategies which can be used by communities for them to remain and continue to become more resilient. Some of the major strategies that are put in place within communities include, alternatives, changing consciousness and hold on actions. Some other strategies include having a compelling vision, sharing resources and maintaining a health ecosystem diversity through sustainable management. Application of such strategies has no time limit. In trying to be resilient old and new strategies can be used. Let us not forget that we have local knowledge/ Indigenous knowledge and modern knowledge which can be used by communities to be resilient. The new knowledge is built on the existing knowledge in most communities.

What I know from the community I come from is that, important assets in the reduction of vulnerabilities lies within the people and groups within my community and this has been supported by Morrow (2008) and Lerch (2015). People within my community are viewed as active agents in the process and they possess local knowledge, skills and connections which are very important resources in building and maintaining resilience (Murphy, 2007).

The use of tools such as social barometer, community asset mapping, community appreciative inquiry and ABC (Attitude, behaviour and context) will see communities building resilience but this has to be continuously looked at since the environment is always changing and cannot be given any time frame hence strategies and tools to deal with resilience must also keep changing.

On resilience

The question, whether there is a minimum time frame in which an individual, community or system should remain resilient to qualify as "resilient" has some interesting aspects. Let me mention at the outset that I shall steer well clear of the Metaphysics of the attribute.

I think it would be a fair question to ask, why bother about the resilience of a person, a group or a system? Unless we can give a satisfactory answer to this query, resilience would be a matter of indifference to us. It would be reasonable to suggest that resilience is desirable because it serves our interests in some way, hence it has a value.

This is a crucial point. Two self-evident inferences follow from it, viz., resilience of something X may be valuable to an individual or to a group of people, and secondly, duration of its value depends on how long an individual or a group would regard the purpose X serves as valuable.

For example, bio-diversity in agriculture makes it more resilient to stresses to which it may be subjected. But the adaptation of mono-culture and factory farms has deprecated the value of the former even though the latter is more vulnerable to such stresses. So, we do not seem to value resilience if a less resilient system enables us to gain a greater financial profit.

For reasons which are not always rational, our dietary tastes and the global food requirements have varied throughout history. These changes the degree of resilience ecosystem services should possess to enable us to meet our dietary needs. Thus, it is difficult to see how one could envisage a notion of resilience independent of people’s desires which change, hence, resilience unchanged by time.

I shall not muddy the water by any reference to a certain theory. However, it is fairly easy to ascertain the adverse effects of incidents that affect large number of people or systems than those of repeated, discreet minor events that affects few individuals or a part of a system.

But, if we remember that a network of causal links may spread from an individual or a part of a system and that repetition of minor adverse events would repeatedly affect those links, it is easy to see that their collective effect could be serious loss of resilience.

However, this does not change the major determinants of resilience, for dealing with external threats to resilience assumes that resilience of X is worthwhile, therefore we need to take steps to preserve or enhance it. So, I suggest we regard resilience with reference to our values, and strive to make them reasonable.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.

Hello and Greetings from India.

This is really a thought provoking discussion. I am a development and Disaster Risk Reduction practitioner. I mostly work with rural communities and grassroots NGOs here. Most of my thoughts are based on my experience of interacting with community members.

Well, the first thought is "Resilience is a process, where by persons attain ability to cope or adapt with the stresses induced by the changing natural, social, political, cultural and economic  environment." In this regard we can identify key qualities of resilience in short term, however we can not cosider this as complete resilience. 

Since the stresses and shocks are combined outcome of natural and human made systems nature of resilience also becomes complex and in my perception it is very difficult to identify a framework providing comprehensive indicators for Resilience as outcome, may it be short term or long term. However it is possible to identify or design a comprehensive framework providing process oriented indicators for measuring state of resilience. One needs to understand that nature personal and community based resilience  will differ from communities to communities it is also essential to look in to diversity and should come up with a broad process oriented indicators which can be adapted as per the context. 

Hello, 

A person’s resilience starts from conception. A pregnant mother needs to have access to vital nutrients, foods and (time to) care in a healthy environment for her and her child, to best shield her baby from malnutrition and debilitating illnesses during the first years of life. Malnutrition permanently undermines a person’s, its community and country’s resilience and any potential to develop and thrive in a highly dynamic, changing world. 

This is about what I proposed almost 4 years ago on this forum, regarding resilience in the context of humanitarian and development aid. That ‘resilience’ efforts may be pretty much a non-starter if vital personal growth and development opportunities are missed out of very early on in life. Has the approach to resilience since changed, what may ‘resilience’ usefully add today, are there any risks?

Pragmatism is one reason, from my point of view, because prevention is better, and cheaper, than cure, and because it often makes sense to - from the beginning of a response -also keep an eye on a longer-term perspective with a broader view of different sectors and how they link together - if one can, when in the midst of messy and chaotic emergencies - to try better connect back to governance and longer term responsibilities - if applicable … - when the acute phase subsides. 

Equity, rights and power are other reasons I believe, to affirm the central place that affected persons and their autonomy - even though in need - must always have in the response (and in general), to avoid the risk of substitution for the responsibilities of governance and development (as one colleague once observed: ‘there is a real risk that resilience, quickly and easily, becomes a cheap cop-out for decent comprehensive development efforts’), and to possibly benefit from change and opportunities that may be brought about by emergencies too. 

This may raise some questions: for whom may a ‘resilience’ concept be useful or true; should the so called resilient persons not be the first ones to be asked? And would it be right to assume that all people are equally ‘equipped’ from the outset with a set of intrinsic personal capacities and resources to help themselves cope with adversity? 

Some approaches to resilience seem to ignore a whole ‘non resilient’ part of the population and rather only focus on those who may ‘bounce back’ after a shock and pursue their ‘development’, thus excluding a large number of other people who actually had nothing left to ‘bounce back from’ from the beginning. In those situations, shouldn’t one stop any hair-splitting about the meaning of resilience and first focus on emergency needs? 

Instead, those who are living in perpetual crisis often appear to be gradually forgotten, because their ‘chronic needs’ are not, or not anymore, considered to be emergency needs because ‘not caused by a sudden shock’, regardless of the severity of their predicament. Chronic malnutrition can be placed in that category too and the socio-economic destitution and gender-based inequities that often surround it, and the list goes on, of people who don’t stand a real chance, who’ve at times even been denied a fair chance before birth. 

In response to “… whether or not a minimum time frame exists in which an individual, community or system should remain resilient to actually qualify as “resilient” …”, isn’t this first of all rather a question for people and communities directly concerned? 

When it comes to chronic needs and their irreversible adverse consequences on personal development, power and rights, these have a rather permanent character. Certainly here the question should also be put to those persons and institution with responsibilities to prevent or address fundamental underlying causes of these condition and inequities in a comprehensive and ultimately political way. 

If ‘resilience’ is strong enough an approach to openly and pro-actively expose and address the inherent questions of power that underlie these permanent chronic states, be it chronic malnutrition, food insecurity, gender inequities or else, then perhaps the temporal outlook may positively change and my friend will be proven wrong, that ‘resilience’ it isn’t a poor ‘technical’ surrogate for fundamental just cooperation and comprehensive governance. I hope so! 

Best greetings, Jan.

I would like to thank the current contributors to this debate for their thought provoking reflections on the challenges of ensuring more sustained outcomes in a very unstable context that is the world we all live in. This instability is potentially more complex among the disaster and shock prone communities and individuals that the work we do seeks to support out of perpetual cycle of inadequate readiness for the shocks. 

That said I have come accross some literature that I believe captures some of the salient points in an analysis of resilience measurement tools that is relevant to this discussion. This is in a paper by Sharifi A. 2016 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470160X16302588).  The paper is a stock take of tools for assessing community resilience. 

In the paper he references to the need to acknowledge cross-scale relationships of shocks and capturing the temporal dynamism of in abilities of communities and individuals to respond to shocks Sharifi A (2016:631). The two dynamics introduce time and space aspects in measuring resilience . He continues to introduce the subject of uncertainities which is at the heart of this discussion.  With this the need for iterative assessments and scenario development is brought to the forefront. 

The temporal dynamism and uncertainities in resilience measurement are in my opinion easily the two specific areas that need more focus. Complex as they may be, they point to the obvios need for deeper analysis accross multiple shocks in both time and impact, past current and future. 

As we keep talking it would be interesting to hear of any practical examples out there that have modelled out specific potential resilience outcomes in a dynamic and unpredictable context. 

The kind of context in which resilience is being built is very critical in determining how much time is required to build resilience to a particular shock faced by a community or household/individual. In contexts where state institutions are as good as inexistent and available resources are directed more towards lifesaving interventions, it’s important to embrace an incremental approach to building resilience to a specific shock. I refer here to specific shock because one can be resilience to one type of shock and remain very vulnerable to another. The incremental approach is one where one short projects short-term "temporal resilience" building outcome is built on by the follow on project. In contexts of chronic vulnerability like one of south Sudan and couple with weak governance structures, it definitely requires much more time and many more incremental steps to deal with prioritized shocks as compared to more stable contexts with good governance structures.

Temporal resilience to threats and crises is necessary to particular crises and threats. However, it should be scaled from being temporal to a sufficient scale of sustainable resilent. I would agree that overcoming of threats temporarily is just like winning a day's battle in a long drawn war hence do not qualify as resilience. Resilience should cover the entire lifespan of an individual, a generation and societies at large. It involves harnessing and optimizing all our human faculties and capabilities, related social capital and natural capital. It must include ability to predict possible future shortcomings, prescribing solutions and implementing them in time.

English translation below

Bonjour à tous les internautes,

Je tiens à féliciter walter mwasaa pour la thématique autour de la résilience. Comme il a si bien développé dans son introduction la construction  de la résilience est complexe ce ci on l’ajoute du fait de la complexité de la conception du terme résilience. En effet la résilience repose sur trois facteurs  prévenir, faire face et surmonter une situation de crise. Maintenant il est question de savoir si les trois facteurs sont liés ? De manière à ce que chaque intervention qui sous-entendu apporte des réponses à une situation de crise de façon à relever la résilience intègre obligatoirement les trois facteurs ? En ce qui concerne le thème c’est un point qui est porté à réflexion dans la mesure où il est question de savoir qu’elle est la durée minimale d’intervention sur un individu ou une communauté pour renforcer une capacité de résilience ? Un individu ou une communauté devient-il résilient lorsqu’il sort d’une situation d’urgence ?  La résilience est-elle générale ? Si un individu ou une communauté  reste vulnérable sur un plan social ou économique  peut-on continuer à le percevoir comme résilient ?

Hello to all contributors!

I would like to congratulate Walter Mwasaa for the topic related to resilience. As he has developed so well in the introduction, resilience building is complicated, if the fact of the complexity of the conception of the term resilience is included. Indeed, resilience stands on three factors: preventing, confronting and overcoming a crisis situation. Right now, it is a question of knowing if the three factors are related. In such a way that does each intervention that implies responses to a crisis situation so as to increase resilience necessarily integrate the three factors? Where the topic is concerned, it is a point that is thought-provoking to the extent that it is a question of knowing what is the minimum duration of an intervention on a person or community in order to reinforce the capacity for resilience? Does a person or community become resilient when they emerge from an urgent situation? Is resilience general? If a person or community stay vulnerable on a social or economic level can one continue to see them as resilient?

English translation below

La résilence aux chocs socioéconomiques est une question temporelle, influencée par des facteurs propres à la personne/communauté exposée. La période de cinq (5) ans est souvent reconnue comme acceptable pour déduire de la résilience ou non à des chocs, et plus loin de la pauvreté chronique d'un individu ou d'une communauté.

La résilience vis-à-vis des chocs socioéconomiques est effectivement une question temporelle. Cette dimension est particulièrement prise en compte dans l’analyse de la dynamique de pauvreté. Les chocs en question peuvent être idiosyncrasiques, affectant certains ménages pris isolement (maladie, décès, …), que communs (ou covariants), affectant un ensemble ou groupe de ménages (sécheresse, inondation, …). La résilience au choc dépend au moins de trois facteurs : le degré d’exposition de la personne/communauté concernée, les ressources disponibles et mobilisables par la personne/communauté concernée et le degré de vulnérabilité de celle-ci. Il s’agit d’une question que j’ai longuement débattue dans ma thèse de doctorat sur la dynamique de pauvreté et la croissance agricole. La littérature indique qu’une période de cinq (5) ans est raisonnable pour déduire si un individu ou une communauté est résilient ou pas. En effet,

i) la période de cinq ans est perçue comme une longue période de temps dans la vie de l’individu dans plusieurs cultures ;

ii) c’est la période de cinq ans qui séparent communément les exercices de collecte de données de panel pour les analyses temporelles ;

iii) les résultats empiriques disponibles indiquent que les personnes qui ont été pauvres (donc non résilient) pendant cinq ans ou plus ont une forte probabilité de demeurer pauvres pour le reste de leur vie.

The resilience to socio-economic shocks is a temporal issue, influenced by factors related to the person/community exposed. The period of five years is often recognized as acceptable to judge resilience (or not) to shocks, and by extension the chronic poverty of an individual or a community.

The resilience against socio-economic shocks is effectively a temporal issue. This dimension is particularly taken into account in the analysis of the dynamics of poverty. The shocks in question can be idiosyncratic, affecting certain households taken in isolation (disease, deaths ...), or general (or broad in effect), which affect a set or group of households (drought, floods ...). The resilience to shock depends on at least three factors: the degree of exposure of the person/community concerned, the availability and mobilization of resources by the concerned person or community and their degree of vulnerability. It is a question that I have debated at length in my doctoral thesis on the dynamic of poverty and agricultural growth. The literature indicates that a period of five (5) years is reasonable to conclude if a person or a community is resilient or not. Indeed,

i) five years is perceived as a long period of time in the life of an individual in many cultures;

ii) five year periods typically break down the data collecting exercises for temporal analyses;

iii) the available empirical results indicate that people who remain poor (therefore not resilient) during five years or more will most probably stay poor for the rest of their lives.